great, so how do we know there's any historical error, if we even don't have the original history?

Human authors make mistakes. So it is entirely possible we have various kinds of historical errors. However, so far the accounts that the biblical authors write with the intention to record history, are remarkably consistent with what we know of the times they describe.

The text is what it is. You need to decide if it makes sense from a historical perspective.

A historical error is for example Moses mentioning the gospels, or meeting Samaritans. We know for certain they did did not exist at his times. Biblical texts have very little of that kind of thing.

You see, I don't suggest that any biblical text was actually written by God, all were written by people, so we will find ideas of their times, but also religious insight.

As a Muslim makes the claim that the Qur'an is written by Allah, we should not find historical errors in it, nor internal contradictions. But we do. Many of them. So this means the idea that is was written by Allah is clearly false.

(oral) tradition which possibly is the original Torah?

You are mixing up to completely different oral traditions. One, hypothesised, is the source of some of the biblical texts of the Torah. The other is what the Jewish religion calls the "oral tradition", which is much later than the Torah, and and EXPLANATION and DISCUSSION of it, today mostly found in the Talmud.

manfred wrote:or meeting Samaritans. We know for certain they did did not exist at his times.

do we know for certain, what God has done?

manfred wrote:As a Muslim makes the claim that the Qur'an is written by Allah, we should not find historical errors in it, nor internal contradictions. But we do. Many of them. So this means the idea that is was written by Allah is clearly false.

that's a claim which still hasn't been proven.

manfred wrote:You are mixing up to completely different oral traditions. One, hypothesised, is the source of some of the biblical texts of the Torah. The other is what the Jewish religion calls the "oral tradition", which is much later than the Torah, and and EXPLANATION and DISCUSSION of it, today mostly found in the Talmud

the problem isn't about whether those both oral traditions are different, but whether those both oral traditions are interchangeable within each other.

Never mind historical accuracy, feel the plagiarism! Yet again a source of something in the Koran is revealed to be pre-Islamic.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

This highlights exactly what happens if you don't understand the sources of the text, so good you mention that...

One source, the older one, suggests that Ishmael was about 13 or 14 years old when Isaac was born. This is from the Elohist. The much later priestly story has Hagar carrying allegedly Ishmael on her shoulders, when she was sent away, according to some translators. This makes no sense as she would be carrying a 16 year old lad. But then you assume that the two sources knew each other! The Priestly source's account is not necessarily the same as the one the Elohist has left us, just as two hadith can but slightly different. In this case, though, the two narrations fit together quite well, and the "problem" is more one of grammar than sources.

When you look closely at the Hebrew text, this is what a more literal translation says:

Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and skin of water and gave to Hagar, putting upon her shoulder, and the boy, and sent her out. And she walked and wandered in the wilderness of Be'er-Sheva.

This means Abraham gave Hagar some provisions and when she had placed THOSE on her shoulder, he also gave her Ishmael, and then sent them away. The "and" related the "boy" to "give", grammatically, not to the shoulders.

manfred wrote:This means Abraham gave Hagar some provisions and when she had placed THOSE on her shoulder, he also gave her, Ishmael, and then sent them away. The "and" related the "boy" to "give", grammatically, not to the shoulders.

that's still the same meaning that Ishmael is still not yet adult, as if Ishmael has been adult, Abraham should gave provisions & sent away Ishmael too, as normally what should be done on two adults.

manfred wrote:Allah made Moses meet Samaritans, even those they did not exit yet?

you know that both of them (Biblical Samaritans & Quranic Samiri) are different Samaritan.

that's still the same meaning that Ishmael is still not yet adult, as if Ishmael has been adult, Abraham should gave provisions & sent away Ishmael too, as normally what should be done on two adults.

Not really.... Ishmael was sent away together with her mother. 16 would have been reasonably grown up, but not fully adult. Also, as I said, the priestly source does not suggest that Ishmael was 13 or 14 when Isaac was born, that is from a different writer. He may have supposed Ishmael was younger.

you know that both of them (Biblical Samaritans & Quranic Samiri) are different Samaritan.

Well, what I know that some Muslims claim this after they became aware that "the Samaritan" does not make sense. So they did what many Muslim do when they find an error... they tried to "fix" it.

In Arabic, if you add and "-i" to a place name you very often get a person who comes from that place. Just as al-Dimashiqi is a guy from Damascus or al-Hindi an Indian, al-Samiri is a person from Samaria. The problem, is that place name did not exist yet at the time of Moses, so it makes no sense at all to suggest that any person from a place not yet so named is among the Israelites. You might as well place a "native American" or "North Korean" there too. That is the kind of mistake in the text.

So how did a "Samaritan" end up in the Moses and the golden calf narrative of the Qur'an? Simple: there is a DIFFERENT, much later story about Samaritans and a DIFFERENT golden calf also found in Jewish tradition, in the book of Hosea. Mohammed conflated the two.

manfred wrote:Not really.... Ishmael was sent away together with her mother.

you said "he also gave her, Ishmael, and then sent them away", its means Abraham said "I sent you away" or such, only to Hagar.

manfred wrote:Well, what I know that some Muslims claim this after they became aware that "the Samaritan" does not make sense. So they did what many Muslim do when they find an error... they tried to "fix" it.

manfred wrote:In Arabic, if you add and "-i" to a place name you very often get a person who comes from that place. Just as al-Dimashiqi is a guy from Damascus or al-Hindi an Indian, al-Samiri is a person from Samaria. The problem, is that place name did not exist yet at the time of Moses, so it makes no sense at all to suggest that any person from a place not yet so named is among the Israelites. You might as well place a "native American" or "North Korean" there too. That is the kind of mistake in the text.

It is simply a fact that the word means "Samaritan", i.e. a person from Samaria.

then why not Samariti

The place name is Samaria, the people are called Samaritans in English. They are not called Samarians, because we have the English word via the Greek and Latin. In Arabic, the term is borrowed from Syriac. The place name is السامرة (alsamira-tu) The "tu" means place or land. In Syriac it was Assamar(e)-to

you said "he also gave her, Ishmael, and then sent them away", its means Abraham said "I sent you away" or such, only to Hagar.

("send" is what you mean....)

This does not follow .... he gave Hagar some provision, then fetched Ishmael, and then they were sent away. What is there not to understand?

manfred wrote:The place name is Samaria, the people are called Samaritans in English. They are not called Samarians, because we have the English word via the Greek and Latin. In Arabic, the term is borrowed from Syriac. The place name is السامرة (alsamira-tu) The "tu" means place or land. In Syriac it was Assamar(e)-to

ok, but its still can be mean :

1. just the similiarity of jew names, first there's person who named Samiri, then after a long time there's city that's also named Samiri.2. acronym for stray person, as in NT Samaritan is stray person, stray in religion.

manfred wrote:("send" is what you mean....)

This does not follow .... he gave Hagar some provision, then fetched Ishmael, and then they were sent away. What is there not to understand?

them: "mereka" her: "dia"

you're who dont understand, the problem isnt about Abraham send who, but about Abraham said I send you guys to who, & as you can see, Abraham only give provision to Hagar (its should be, Abaraham give provisions to Hagar & Ishmael [no give Ishmael to Hagar] and send them away)

manfred wrote:Hi Ygalg, it is good to see you. I know I am not your mother, but I want to say be careful with facebook and twitter, there are been some very odd court cases for so-called "hate speech" ...

likewise. yes, forged a very disturbing time, where the social networks, which supposed to back freedom of speech and be our last front, turned against us. anyway, my facebook participation is mostly Hebrew. oddly I'm less active on twitter in present time. it seems facebook succeeded to made itself popular again after been pushed away due twitter phenomena.

I'm now more focusing on the threat approaching from Judaism (religion). as it pushing to reshape israel state's democratic character to religious. if only people kept faith to themselves and understand it is a private matter not a national nor political, that religious coercion is no, no. that would have been something. I'm less satisfied from what israel is now. and very much concerns of what it might become...

(remember that young Moroccan guy years back who called you a "kazar"?) The claim is that effectively most modern Israelis are not really related to the the original Israelites at all, and hence they have no business being in Israel. Most Jews, specially the Ashkenazim, they say, are Central Asian people who were converts to Judaism in the middle ages.

hard to remember. many rivers streamed.

it could have been the author intention. or neglectance. nonetheless for modern person who a bit familiar with theology and history it is a terrible mistake.

Last edited by ygalg on Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it”Eric Hoffer

God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2nd century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

1. it is a pharisees stand who invented the talmud and claim it was given all together to give legitimacy to what they call oral Torah. 2. the other problem it is "a commentary" of a sage/rabbi who addresses why did god use the plural term shouting in Abel's murder by Cain (which is how it also copy and paste quran mentioned two brothers before using the talmud famous quote) the sage concludes the murder one person... 3. you give legitimacy to people you blame corrupted the Torah yes they did corrupted the Torah (not physically as you accustom to believe) its interpretation have changed. the talmud is that "interpretation". and it is in quran. 4. the Torah in its early stage, was not in form of a book nor a scroll. but was transmitted orally generation to generation. it came in form of writing later years. talmud etc came much later, closeness to new testament. Torah and talmud separate different periods of time.

Last edited by ygalg on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it”Eric Hoffer

here the thing, no other sects of jews recognized the "oral" Torah as it present by pharisee sect. even Samaritans do not. and Samaritans possess the oldest copy of Torah. the red sea scrolls were not found with any talmud writings.

the pharisee were rebels who took over priesthood. pushed away the genuine priests who were practicing original rituals... pharisees were like the protestants. and they were first to introduce organized assassination group in history before the Japanese ninjas. terrorists as you will. which the romans nicknamed "sicarios".

to take the idea it was part of the Torah. how would a commentary align in the Torah?

and don't forget it's not Cain and Abel but Habil and Qabil. you know the "original" names.

“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it”Eric Hoffer